But individual pixel quality is being completely ignored with your methodology.
Just to get things straight, I do not believe that it's not useful to measure pixel performance. I am merely stating that the DR of the pixel is not the DR of the
camera. It is only the DR of the pixel. Both should be measured. However, in your comments there is an implication that individual pixel noise
limits the DR of the camera. It clearly does not. If it did, a camera with 12 pixels would have the same DR as a camera with 12 billion pixels, all with the same shot noise and read noise.
(Image quality) = (pixel quality) * (pixel quantity).
The square root of pixel quantity.
When noise levels become high enough that an individual pixel no longer contains meaningful image detail and you have to start averaging or binning them together to see the actual image data under the noise, pixel quality has been flushed down the toilet.
Nope. Your dismissive terminology does not render the pixels useless. There is no threshold upon which a pixel becomes totally useless. You simply need more of them, and you
do get sufficiently more of them if you've been subdividing into smaller pixels.
Ignoring the effect of noise on individual pixels and looking only at the entire image is exactly the current flawed methodology that predicts grossly optimistic DR figures that are not achievable in real-world photography.
No. That's another problem, entirely. The bigger problem is that no one has bothered to come up with a standard way of dealing with resolution vs noise, because most of the more scientifically-oriented people are missing the forest for the trees and measuring pixels, while the people looking at "images" aren't even accounting for RAW conversion issues. Both are barking up the wrong tree.
In the real world, noise levels are deemed unacceptable when noise levels start causing a deterioration of resolution in low contrast subject matter such as the texture of cloth, hair, and skin, or the woodgrain pattern in furniture, etc.
People are not very clever in the real world. They get fooled very easily.
The real fact of the real world is that noise does not limit resolution any worse than having big pixels does, so the effect is moot. Smaller pixels do, however, allow higher resolution for high contrast or tonal ranges where noise is not a big problem.
The exposure range in which such subtleties can still be successfully resolved is of far more practical value to the photographer than the exposure range in which a few large, high-contrast objects can still be picked out from the background noise.
Most of the time, yes, but the principles are similar. You do not get better resolution by trading for bigger pixels with less pixel noise. It does not happen. In less (image-)noisy tonal ranges, however, the higher resolution of the smaller pixels will resolve more detail.
My approach measures the former, yours only the latter. My approach has far more real-world relevance than yours.
Really? Let's take your approach to the extreme. Let's say you use a camera that only has enough pixels to make the white square 100 pixels, when the target fills the entire frame. You also have a camera with pixels the same size, pitch, QE, capacity, and read noise, but 100x as many of them, and shoot the target with the center crop. What have you just tested? You have just tested the pixels, which are exactly the same. To say that both have the same dynamic range, as cameras, is ridiculous, because with the proper lenses for equal FOV, the camera with 100x as many pixels will show details much farther down into the shadows.
If you want to dispute this,
I'm not sure your "this" refers to anything I actually believe, but I'll try to follow along.
try the following experiment: Conduct the test twice, the first time with the chart filling the frame, and the second time with the chart farther away so that the white square is 100 pixels across. During both tests, have something with fine detail in the frame other than the chart, such as a doll, potted plant, or whatever, so that you have some kind of quasi-real-life subject matter in-frame besides the chart. Post the frames from both tests where the smallest chart text legibility most closely matches the sample images in the ZIP file. Looking at the doll or whatever you put in the frame besides the chart, which image has a noise level you would consider acceptable to deliver to a paying client? Post 100% crops of both the chart and the doll or whatever, or better yet, DNGs.
I look forward to seeing the results with great interest.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161453\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What does this have to do with anything I've said? Obviously, the subject detail is going to be less when the subject fills less of the frame, exposure remaining equal. When the target fills the frame, you can get the same resolution of the smallest text with a lower exposure.
Let me refresh what I am arguing (and Ray, and some others); measuring the DR range of the pixel is only about the pixel. It only means something to the DR of the image when the number of them are also taken into account.
I don't have a working printer right now, so I can't print your target. If you made it clear what you think you are proving, I could comment, though.